Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Undated and no attribution for source of Wal's comments cited at the posting website.

From Wall Thornhill: I mentioned a few weeks ago that an epoch making experiment had been performed in the realm of fundamental physics which had great importance for Velikovskian style catastrophism (and just about everything else for that matter). The experiment, performed by Ralph Sansbury, is amazingly simple but has amazing consequences.

Sansbury is a quiet spoken physicist from Connecticut. He is associated with the Classical Physics Institute, or CP Institute, of New York which publishes the Journal of Classical Physics. In the Notes to Contributors we find the focus of the journal: "Marinov's experiment, Bell's theorem, and similar works reveal increasing discontent with the dogmas of modern physics. Some physicists postulate that blackbody radiation, atomic spectra, nuclear reactions, electron diffraction, the speed of light and all other phenomena which Quantum Wave Mechanics and Relativity were designed to explain will require different explanations. It is the viewpoint of this journal that the new explanations probably will be consistent with Aristotelian logic and Newtonian or Galilean mechanics." Volume 1, Part 1, in January 1982 was devoted to an article titled "Electron Structure", by Ralph Sansbury. The title itself should raise physicist's eyebrows since electrons are considered to have no structure. They are treated as being indivisible, along with quarks.

The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin, for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous electrostatic force. The Lorentz contraction-dilation of space time and mass is unnecessary. Electromagnetic radiation becomes the cumulative effect of instantaneous electrostatic forces at a distance and the wave/particle (photon) duality disappears. Discontinuous absorption/emission of energy in quanta by atoms becomes a continuous process. And there is more.

Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light through to the detector, or stop it.

Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.

What happened?

The detector saw nothing!!!

It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment, the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target is untouched!

What does it mean?

Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is wrong!

As another classical physicist using a theoretical approach to the same problem succinctly put it:

"... there emerges the outline of an alternative "relativistic" physics, quite distinct from that of Maxwell-Einstein, fully as well confirmed by the limited observations available to date, and differing from it not only in innumerable testable ways but also in basic physical concepts and even in definitional or ethnical (sic) premises as to the nature of physics. Thus a death struggle is joined that must result in the destruction of one world-system or the other: Either light is complicated and matter simple, as I think, or matter is complicated and light simple, as Einstein thought. I have shown here that some elegant mathematics can be put behind my view. It has long been known that inordinate amounts of elegant mathematics can be put behind Einstein's. Surely the time fast approaches to stop listening to mathematical amplifications of our own internal voices and to go into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say." - Modifications of Maxwell's Equations, T E Phipps, The Classical Journal of Physics, Vol 2, 1, Jan 1983, p. 21.

Ralph Sansbury has now done precisely that!

In simple terms, Sansbury gives the electron a structure by proposing a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the classical radius of an electron. A simple calculation gives the surprising result that these subtrons are moving at a speed of 2.5 million light years per second! That is, they could theoretically cover the distance from Earth to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second. This gives some meaning to the term 'instantaneous action at a distance'. (Note that this is a requirement for any new theory of gravity). (Also I have always considered it evidence of peculiar naivety or arrogance on the part of scientists, such as Sagan, who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) by using radio signals. What superior intelligence would use such a slow, and therefore useless, interstellar signalling system?) Such near infinite speed requires that there can be no mass increase with velocity. The speed of light is not a speed barrier. All of the experiments which seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion of the particle until, ultimately, at the speed of light, there is an expulsion of the subtrons. Under such conditions, the particle only APPEARS to be gaining mass.

Notably, in the past few months, scientists in Hamburg using the most powerful electron microscope have found on about a dozen occasions out of 10 million trials, relativistic electrons recoiled more violently off protons than had ever been seen before. This may turn out to be direct experimental proof of Sansbury's model of the electron having structure.

To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed of light.

In terms of the gun and target analogy, it is as if particles of the bullet are being absorbed by the shield from the instant of firing, so that when the shield is pulled aside there is no bullet left to hit the target.

It is not possible to overstate the importance of this work because it lends direct support to a new model of the electron in particular, and matter in general, which EXPLAINS magnetism, gravity and quantum effects without any resort to the kind of metaphysics which allows our top physicists to think they can see "God" in their equations. The new classical physicists can mix it with the best of them when it comes to the mathematics but they are more prepared to "go into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say."

This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true, insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the atom, rather than a warp in space (whatever the hell that means), gives us a simple mechanism by which the solar system can be rapidly stabilised after a period of chaotic motion.

There is an impression, as I reread the work of Sansbury and other classical physicists, that what we are facing is something like "Back to the Future". And like the movie of that name, the possibilities that we encounter will seem like science fiction come true. But it is well-known that science fiction writers are better at predicting the future of science than experts!

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

The main thing to remember about biological mutations is that there is no physical explanation for the very successful quantum theory of matter. One of the quantum effects is "tunnelling" through a potential barrier. It is as if a car rolled down a hill and when confronted with a bigger hill, when it got to the bottom, it disappeared and reappeared on the other side of the bigger hill - as if a tunnel had magically and momentarily appeared.

With the aid of Sansbury's model of an atom, we see that quantum states and quantum tunnelling are a result of electrostatic resonances between the charged particles that make up electrons, protons and neutrons. It is important to stress that the electrostatic force operates with near infinite speed, otherwise there would be no stable resonances.

These resonances mean that the positive nuclear coulomb force is not a static field but instead an oscillating field. In that case, if two nuclei can be brought close together in a molecule, and a catalyst (radiation or a resonant atom) can provide a resonant electric field, then the coulomb force may be instantaneously attractive instead of repulsive and a nuclear transmutation effected (the magic tunnel through the hill).

The difficulty we face in performing the same feat is because we use brute force and ignorance; we simply smash nuclei together sufficiently violently to overcome the coulomb force (go over the hill). Nature is far more subtle.

There is a company called Black Light Power who have used (unwittingly it seems) resonant catalysis of hydrogen to drop the electron into an orbit below its normal ground state. Of course, the energy released is very high (in the UV, hence the name of the company) and is only one step removed from Louis Kervran's resonant tapping of nuclear energy. The principle has been shown industrially now, so it should not be too difficult to imagine the next step. The possibilities are mind boggling. See http://www.blacklightpower.com/process.shtml

I agree with Ralph's model of matter, gravity and magnetism, but I take issue with his view of instantaneous electromagnetic radiation. In my view there is an ether, in the form of a plenum of neutrinos, and em radiation is simply an electrostatic disturbance in the ether. The characteristic velocity of the disturbance in that medium is c. As we know, other media have different characteristic velocities of propagation.

My view of external influences of biological systems is aligned with Bruce Lipton and Rupert Sheldrake, but I have a model to explain it, based on resonant signalling between structured atomic systems. It works for ordered crystals, and all the way up to living creatures. Have you ever wondered how the slow nerve impulses in a top tennis player allow him/her to play shots that should be totally impossible? Our electromechanical view of living systems is woefully inadequate to explain anything like that. It seems there is such a thing as the bodymind, in which information is communicated nearinstantaneously throughout the body (and beyond), and stored nonlocally. We have all heard of organ transplant recipients who take on some of the characteristics of the dead donor. Who we are is more than meets the eye.

Living systems are not restricted to simply rearranging electrons in molecules to exchange energy with the environment, they are able to resonantly restructure atomic nuclei as well. Kervran is right. This ability is at the very heart of the difference between living, organized matter, and nonliving, disorganized matter. When it comes to the philosophical question of what organizes this beautiful system, we are left to armwave about Sheldrake's morphic fields and the inherent intelligence of the universe. It leads to the idea that we are manifestations of some higher order in the universe.

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Wal wrote: Ralph's work has enormous implications for physics and heralds a return to classical models of subatomic particles and away from the metaphysics which now underpin cosmology and particle physics. My humble view is that it is the breakthrough needed for fundamental science to progress once more.

Questioner writes: I look forward to it! Do you have any references to Ralph Sansbury's work to keep me occupied till then?

Wal replies: I think relevant copies of the Journal of Classical Physics may be obtained from Ralph by e-mail request to rns@concentric.net Ask about his other published material too. A good background in math and physics is desirable to understand the work, but from what you have said that should suit you.

Wal answers another question: In answer to your second question, I think the fact that the gravitational "constant", G, measured on the Earth, is so inconstant is evidence for a connection. It would be interesting to see if G was measured at the time of a rotational "glitch" caused by dumping of charge on the Earth by a solar flare. I would expect an anomalous result.

Questioner writes: How to you figure this? Is it speculation or are there scientific findings that suggest this?

It's an idea that I haven't followed up yet. The line of reasoning goes like this:

1. It is known that the Earth's rotation changes suddenly when it intercepts a mass of charged particles hurled from the Sun by a major flare. The rotation asymptotically recovers to its pre-glitch value over a period of months.

2. A rotating charged body has a proportion of its moment of inertia attributable to the charge. Change the charge and you change the moment of inertia. The body speeds up or slows down accordingly.

3. I, and others, have argued that mechanism (2) applies to the Earth and explains (1) best.

4. If Sansbury's electrostatic polarization model of gravity is correct, a change in the electrostatic charge on the Earth's surface will affect the Earth's gravity directly and should show a sudden change followed by an asymptotic return to its former value as the charge leaks away.

It may be that the change in G is down in the noise of the experimental determinations. Certainly, the readings would have to be compared from the one laboratory since determinations of G at different laboratories often exhibit inexplicable differences and variations. I am suggesting here a cause of those variations in G and a correlation with solar flares which has never been contemplated, so presumably hasn't been looked for.

Questioner continues: How is the strength of gravity determined on other planets? Has gravity and density/mass been determined independent of each other for planets, or has one been used to calculate the other? If they are not determined separately, how can we be sure both are correct since we don't even really know what causes gravity?

Wal replies: Density has not been determined independently from gravity, therefore statements about the density of planets are not worth much. It is well known that there are severe problems in estimating core composition and sizes in some planets and moons from standard models because of their calculated average densities.

Questioner: I thought as much; kind of nice to have self-confirming measurements. So then, astronomers must be able to predict the planetary motions only because of the stability of the present planetary system (assuming an electrical link to gravity).

Wal comments: Yes, in my view we owe the stability of our n-body system to the hypothesized link between charge on a planet and the planet's gravity. It gets around the old problem of how can electrical forces between planets play any part in modifying their orbits when the solar plasma shields from such forces. Electrical forces obviously don't play a role (unless two planets approach very closely and the plasma sheaths contact). But gravity is not shielded by plasma at all.

An example of what I mean by the stabilizing influence: A planet with an unstable orbit will exhibit increasing eccentricity in its orbit. There will be an increasing radial component of motion relative to the Sun. In the electrically stressed plasma enveloping the Sun, this would result in a modification of the charge exchange between the planet and the solar plasma. (An extreme example is the comet where the charge exchange is energetic enough to create light and even x-rays in the enclosing plasma). As the eccentric planet moves toward the Sun, increasing positive charge would be accumulated from the solar wind which would reduce the negative surface charge, which would reduce the electrostatic polarization, which would reduce gravity, which would reduce the inward acceleration, which would reduce the eccentricity. The reverse argument applies as the planet moves radially away from the Sun, with the result gravity increases and the eccentricity is reduced on this leg too.

Planets which orbit too closely to one another will suffer charge exchange via the plasma sheath of the inner planet (magnetotail in old-speak) once each synodic period which, by transfer of positive charge from the inner planet to the outer planet, will tend to push the orbits apart. Bode's law presumably results from this electro-gravitic form of the least-interaction principle.

If so, isn't Nature wonderful!?

In my opinion, it is the only plausible way we could achieve the current low eccentricity solar system from the breakup of a Saturnian system only thousands of years ago.

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

The links below might prove useful to some for research purposes. They point to about 2,720 postings by Sansbury to various Usenet groups over the years. The 2nd link is the expanded version of the 1st (i.e. same as clicking on the "Show All" link of the page opened by the 1st link). Not as satisfactory as having direct access to his journal articles or other writings, but nonetheless there appear to be some gems.

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Thank you, Bryan, for posting the Sansbury website info, and snippets of Wal's take on it.
This was my entry into the EU. I disagree with Wal's dissention on instantaneous light transmission across space, as anyone reading my other posts would expect. Wal feels that transmission of EM across a neutrino aether must take some significant time. I figure the problem (ie. my problem with Wal) lies with his assumptions regarding the aether... Much of what I read in this forum can be explained without an aether, while other suppositions absolutely depend on it. I have been trying for months to determine if an aether fits into "my" unified field theory, with no conclusive finding either way. Instantaneous light, gravitation, electrostatic field transmutation (eg a voltage drop), simply do not require an aether as a propagating medium.
I dialogued over a number of weeks with Ralph regarding his work on Pioneer 10/11 satellite ephemeris. Joining our dialogue was Larry Kellogg, a retired AMES radio researcher. I see he has posted some of this work via links at his mysite page.
It is fantastic to see more of Wal's thinking opened up into the forum. This is going to be a great thread I think! Thanks again!
Gordon

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

The Spiral Galaxy is a Standing Longitudinal Scalar Wave. Aether is a Scalar Field. How can you have one without the other?

Both are primary forms and therefore primary fields. Its the structure and function model I champion, not anything else. The universe does all the talking, its her language we need to learn. Structure and Function is Her alphabet and language

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

I am interested in Wal's Push/Pull Gravity model. Thats a thought. Clears up a lot of things.

An example of what I mean by the stabilizing influence: A planet with an unstable orbit will exhibit increasing eccentricity in its orbit. There will be an increasing radial component of motion relative to the Sun. In the electrically stressed plasma enveloping the Sun, this would result in a modification of the charge exchange between the planet and the solar plasma. (An extreme example is the comet where the charge exchange is energetic enough to create light and even x-rays in the enclosing plasma). As the eccentric planet moves toward the Sun, increasing positive charge would be accumulated from the solar wind which would reduce the negative surface charge, which would reduce the electrostatic polarization, which would reduce gravity, which would reduce the inward acceleration, which would reduce the eccentricity. The reverse argument applies as the planet moves radially away from the Sun, with the result gravity increases and the eccentricity is reduced on this leg too.

Planets which orbit too closely to one another will suffer charge exchange via the plasma sheath of the inner planet (magnetotail in old-speak) once each synodic period which, by transfer of positive charge from the inner planet to the outer planet, will tend to push the orbits apart. Bode's law presumably results from this electro-gravitic form of the least-interaction principle.

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Wal gives a great electrogravitic explanation for the low eccentricity of both Venus and Earth through archaeohistoric electrical interactions.

Dean, your use of the word "field" is so different from mine that it is hard to address your question... to me, structure results from field geometry, and exhibits it, but the structure (you mean material object, such as a galaxy, star or planet) is not the field. I really don't visualize the aether well, but if it's there, it may be located in the field, but isn't the field. Somewhere our concepts intersect, but here they clash. Is there a different word we can use to overcome the "field" semantic problem?
Gordon

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

All Matter is comprised of Fields. I think you misunderstood me. I agree with everything you said.
The Aether/Scalar is the Primary Field. All Structure is from Field Geometry. The Aether is not seperate from the Field. It is the Primary Field. In APM the Gforce powers the Aether Field and is Quantified.

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

You agree with everything I said? Then I clearly misunderstand you! But that's been happening all along...
If this kind of "misunderstanding" keeps happening, we may be communicating for a long time to come!

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tiny electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given instant, cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all directions. The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each other. - Columbia: Questions of Some Gravity

But I relate this "slight distortion" to how the aether is affected as well. It to is relatively "electrically neutral" but "jitters" in it's own "phase-lock" until the introduction of "charge" which is our perception of a certain 'threshold' of longitudinal phase dominance with regard to "dipole distortion".

Also in this relationship I find the 'point-particle' concept useless:

The natural constants eo, mo and c describes the physics of vacuum and therefore the ether it contains. The polarization process can be understood by assuming the ether, vacuum, existing out of very small neutral point-volumes. The assumption of an identity like the point-volume is necessary to be able to describe the physics concerning the electrostatic field. The assumption of the existence of point-volumes may seem weird at first.

Each neutral point-volume is the result of two overlapping point-volumes of opposite sign; a negative and a positive point-volume. The negative and positive point-volume can be (partly) separated depending on the strength of the electric field. The vacuum is considered to be filled with point-volumes.

These assumptions do not add any physical characteristics to the well-known vacuum. The entities e, m and c already implies these now visualized characteristics. The assumption of point-volumes is just the means to visualize the process. When there is an electric field the strength of this field is considered proportional with the separation of the positive and negative point-volume. Schematically the separation is demonstrated in figure 8.

Compare the process with a very small and very strong spring. When there is an electric field E on opposite sides of the point-volume, there are equal forces pulling apart the positive and negative part. When there is for example a positive charge +Q in the ether, then in the point-volumes next to +Q the negative part of the point-volume is attracted and the positive is rejected. The separation in these point-volumes initiates a separation, in a similar way, in the next point-volume and so on. In this way one can envisage the dielectric transfer of charge in vacuum.

'Volume' infers the amount of 'space' that an object 'takes up' or conveys the concept of how much 'space' is 'occupied' by an object. However, it seems perfectly feasable to also consider 'volume' to be applicable with regard to a quantity or 'area' of 'space' that may be affected by an event. In considering a Cosmic Aether, it also seems feasible that one could have the 'volumetric polarization' of an 'aetheric lattice' (Harold Aspden's).

The incorporation of 'volume' in an aetheric relationship has the benefit of totally ellimenating the persistant need to fill the 'space' left by apparently assumed spherical 'point-particles'. The reason being that 'Volume' considerations would seem to exhibit more of an 'area of effect' relationship to such extent that the further from center one gets the intensity of an 'effect' would gradually decrease'; the closer towards center the intensity of an effect would increase etc. This could also result in dynamical 'volumetrically polarized regions' of interaction and 'overlapping' with the 'induction' of new and different 'phases' and 'phase coupling' relationships that would/could supportively coexist with the original impetus via resonance/harmonic in what could be interpreted as a 'fluid-like' manner of 'phase-transitions'.

But would the 'area' so 'polarized' be spherical? No. Only when the aether is 'at rest' would the 'natural phase' of the aetheric lattice probably produce perfectly spherical, balanced, and uniform 'positive and negative point-volumes'. The introduction of "charge" would 'polarized' the affected portion of that 'lattice' and the resulting 'crystolic order' would make ellipses of the "point volumes" so affected aka "dipole distortion". The immediate "back reaction" of those affected "point-volumes" is the result of individual, and a collective, tending back towards the 'equilibrium' of the original phase of the aetheric lattice. It seems probable that this dynamic, 'stress' or "strain" is what we experience and call "magnetism".

The 'volume' of aether so affect by "charge" would then result in, and be interpreted as, a "field".

"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

Reminds me in a way of R.J. Boscovich, but I'll have to get back on that.

From the back,

"Boscovich developed a speculative molecular theory of matter, and laid the groundwork for field theory of physical action. In order to defend the principle of continuity - in particular, to solve the theoretical problems created by bodies in collision, which seemingly results in instantanious changes of velocity and position- he was led to introduce an atomic theory in which matter is composed of "points of force," indivisible, without dimension or shape , but like the atoms of Leucippus separated by finite discharges.
This assumption results in a mechanics and optics of pure geometry in the form of fields of force. It is known that Faraday, who developed the modern theory of fields, studied Boscovich with care ((as so did Tesla)). Certainly , Farady's respect for physical continuity parralels that of Boscovich.
This theory also suggests curious- alsmost uncanny - intimations of general relativity and quatum physics. Boscovich treats Newton's law of gravitation as a "classical limit," a good-enough approximation where distances are large : "...nor, I assert, can [the law of gravitation ] be deduced from astronomy, that is followed with perfect accuracy even at the distances of the planets and the comets, but one merely that is at so very nearly correct, that the differences from the law of inverse squares is very slight." But , he argues , for phenomena on the atomic scale, Newton's "classical" law breaks down altogether, and the forces of attraction are replaced by an oscillation between attractive and repulsice forces.

Theory of Natural Philosophy

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

Solar, your "volume of the affected space or area", and "point volume" concepts are almost a precise paraphrasing of my field concept, based in the geometry of hexagons, based further on trisogons (equilateral triangles), interacting concentrically with orthogonal geometry of squares.
Negative/positive point volumes and "volumetrically polarized regions" picture the unidirectional vectoral dimension...
The "lattice" is the exigent result of interacting/competing points of polity, or centroids of adjacent field systems... the crystalline aspect arisng from the overlapping of "ideally spherical" punctual fields yields structures at every scale reminiscent of the double octahedral structure of the local universe, the hexagonal structures so prevalent in mineralogy, the LaGrangian and octavian aspects of the solar system, as well as the hexagonal geometry inherent in the periodicity of the elements.
Interactivity of punctual fields (EM...) results in the movement of matter and charge across the system, but does not depend on movement of EM across the field, with or without an intervening aether, but on the centropic force field.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Boscovich post a little up wrote:shape , but like the atoms of Leucippus separated by finite discharges.

This should be distances .

Apologies.

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.